Can man prove or absolutely deny the existence of a God? Whether the Bible's timeline during Genesis is accurate, or not, is a moot point, especially considering Science has a very loose grasp on Genesis. A creationist is just someone that believes that a God (or other supernatural being) created life, not someone that believes that the judeo-christian God created life.

The fact is we don't know the origin of life and there's no concrete proof supporting any explanation.

Could some invisible being in the sky, or universe, have created life? Sure, why not? One of the other explanations is all life just happened to come from mud. No proof for either explanation, but why do we immediately dismiss Creationism in favor of other ideas? Because you fear the idea of a 'God'? Because 'Creationism' is normally associated with the judeo-christian God?

All throughout history humans have held opinions on things that were horribly misguided. The earth was flat. The sun revolved around the planet. Things didn't exist unless they were within a direct line of sight. Objects in motion came to a stop because they got tired. We had absolutely no understanding of things like electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces, sound and space until the last several hundred years. Are you all suggesting that we're at the apex of our scientific discoveries? Have we really learned and discovered all there is to see and know? Last I checked, the standard model is still growing (and it has theoretical problems), we're still trying to explore space (and we haven't even ventured past the boundary of our solar system), and there are countless discoveries made in the chemical and biological realms each year. All things throughout scientific history exist before they're discovered, yet you fools are so naive to think there's no possibility of a God, and if there is, that it couldn't be responsible for life?

I'm confident that, one day, the origin of life will be proven. Until then, stop speaking in absolutes. Any absolute opinion on the matter requires a leap of faith -- whether a theist of atheist -- and you're stupid if you think otherwise.

So it's ignorant to attribute the Origin of Life to something, like Intelligent Design, because it can't be proven.
But it's not ignorant to attribute the Origin of Life to something, like Abiogenesis, because it can't be proven.

Gotcha.

Absolutely it's ignorant. And you're very ignorant.

Now, before we take this any further, why don't you look up the definition of the word Ignorant, so you don't make anymore ignorant comments like that one. You're clearly ignorant of the meaning of the word.

And trying to attribute the origin of life to some higher power or greater being is RELIGION. It's what cavemen did to explain things they didn't understand. That is how the concept of Gods came to be.

What made that big boom in the sky? It must have been the thunder god. What makes the sun come up? It must be the sun god. Where did life come from? It must be god.

There is no science in it whatsoever. There is no attempt to apply science whatsoever. There is no attempt to learn, to educate, or to explore. It's the easy answer for the ignorant. "I don't understand it so rather than learning and trying to find the answer I'll just say it's God."

It's religion, and religion has no place in a science class. Religion is the opposite of science, religion is entirely based on ignorance.

In short, science says "I don't know the answers so I will find them"
Inteliigent Design says "I don't know the answers so God did it"

Originally Posted by Chickenooble

Could some invisible being in the sky, or universe, have created life? Sure, why not? One of the other explanations is all life just happened to come from mud. No proof for either explanation, but why do we immediately dismiss Creationism in favor of other ideas? Because you fear the idea of a 'God'? Because 'Creationism' is normally associated with the judeo-christian God?

No.

Creationism is rejected because you give credit to a god rather than looking for the answer to the question.

There is no evidence of any kind to support the belief in a god or invisible being in the sky. There is no attempt to find any, and there is no attempt to explain why there is none.

Your higher being is an excuse to remain ignorant. Rather than look for evidence, look for answers, and try to find an explaination you simply say your higher being did it and that is that. You would rather NOT find any answers, because if you do then it's possible those answers may say your higher being doesn't exist, and that would cause you to lose your faith.

And we all know what happens when a believer of a higher power loses their faith, don't we?

Best to remain ignorant.

Let's say that tomorrow some chemist creates life in a test tube after finding just the right mixture of chemicals and environmental conditions to make it happen thus proving beyond doubt that life can be spontaneously created in nature without a god being involved. What happens to your Intelligent Design theory then?

Now, before we take this any further, why don't you look up the definition of the word Ignorant, so you don't make anymore ignorant comments like that one. You're clearly ignorant of the meaning of the word.

You're a testy little $#@!. To humor you I looked up the definition. Looks like I'm spot on.

In short, science says "I don't know the answers so I will find them"
Inteliigent Design says "I don't know the answers so God did it"

There is no evidence of any kind to support the belief in a god or invisible being in the sky. There is no attempt to find any, and there is no attempt to explain why there is none.

It's possible that an inability to discover God would be due to technological limitations. Before the second industrial revolution, if you told someone, "One day houses will be illuminated with something other than candles and fire", you would've been laughed at. Even 100 years ago, you would've been laughed at if you said, "In 100 years, we'll be sending messages to people half a world away in seconds, via electrons." Who knows where we'll be in the next couple decades or century.

What happens to your Intelligent Design theory then?

It's not my theory. I don't support any theory on the origin of life... I'm not going to $#@! on any of them, either. No one has an answer, that's why.

To answer your question: It depends.

We know, for a fact, that life started at some point. If a scientist can, in a lab, reconstruct the conditions needed for life to spring from mud, then I would think, "Ok. So, life can spring from mud. That's pretty cool." I'd be even more convinced if that artificially created life was capable of replication and mutation because that's essential to the equation. Regardless, it wouldn't answer the question, "Did some supernatural force create these conditions in the first place."

Can man prove or absolutely deny the existence of a God? Whether the Bible's timeline during Genesis is accurate, or not, is a moot point, especially considering Science has a very loose grasp on Genesis. A creationist is just someone that believes that a God (or other supernatural being) created life, not someone that believes that the judeo-christian God created life.

The fact is we don't know the origin of life and there's no concrete proof supporting any explanation.

Could some invisible being in the sky, or universe, have created life? Sure, why not? One of the other explanations is all life just happened to come from mud. No proof for either explanation, but why do we immediately dismiss Creationism in favor of other ideas? Because you fear the idea of a 'God'? Because 'Creationism' is normally associated with the judeo-christian God?

All throughout history humans have held opinions on things that were horribly misguided. The earth was flat. The sun revolved around the planet. Things didn't exist unless they were within a direct line of sight. Objects in motion came to a stop because they got tired. We had absolutely no understanding of things like electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces, sound and space until the last several hundred years. Are you all suggesting that we're at the apex of our scientific discoveries? Have we really learned and discovered all there is to see and know? Last I checked, the standard model is still growing (and it has theoretical problems), we're still trying to explore space (and we haven't even ventured past the boundary of our solar system), and there are countless discoveries made in the chemical and biological realms each year. All things throughout scientific history exist before they're discovered, yet you fools are so naive to think there's no possibility of a God, and if there is, that it couldn't be responsible for life?

I'm confident that, one day, the origin of life will be proven. Until then, stop speaking in absolutes. Any absolute opinion on the matter requires a leap of faith -- whether a theist of atheist -- and you're stupid if you think otherwise.

I find it amusing that you start by asking for an absolute but end on asking that we don't talk in absolutes.

Personally, I agree that we don't know the origins. However, that doesn't mean there's a valid answer in 'god did it'. Certainly not when there's no evidence of 'his' existence outside of a single book.

Taking that aside, the issue begins when people try to impose a religious belief system on others. Which by trying to bring creationism into the science class, is what the proposed legislation is designed to do.

It just so happens that for creationism to be considered 'true', the existence of a god has to be assumed as also true. We need to back up and have evidence of a god before we can move forward in teaching anything in the bible as fact.

Although, I do have to say. I still believe that platform 9 and 3/4 does exist and if you can't get through the wall, you're just not believing hard enough!

You guys seem very hung up on the idea that the judeo-christian God is necessary for Intelligent Design or any Creationist theory.

I'm not a religious man and I don't agree with organized religion... but, without proof for any theory, I can't absolutely write off the possibility that something (not necessarily 'God') we have yet to discover is responsible for the existence of life.

Really, a judeo-christian 'God' might exist, and we could all be wrong. Like I said before, all things that have been discovered existed before their discovery.

You guys seem very hung up on the idea that the judeo-christian God is necessary for Intelligent Design or any Creationist theory.

I'm not a religious man and I don't agree with organized religion... but, without proof for any theory, I can't absolutely write off the possibility that something (not necessarily 'God') we have yet to discover is responsible for the existence of life.

Really, a judeo-christian 'God' might exist, and we could all be wrong. Like I said before, all things that have been discovered existed before their discovery.

Why does it exactly need to be taught in schools? There are no absolutes, but that isn't a reason to treat ID equally in schools as the theory of evolution.

Like I said, Intelligent Design theory is based on ignorance. Science tries to find the answer to what is not known. By your own admission, people who believe in Intelligent Design are happy to be ignorant.

It's possible that an inability to discover God would be due to technological limitations. Before the second industrial revolution, if you told someone, "One day houses will be illuminated with something other than candles and fire", you would've been laughed at. Even 100 years ago, you would've been laughed at if you said, "In 100 years, we'll be sending messages to people half a world away in seconds, via electrons." Who knows where we'll be in the next couple decades or century.

Which precisely is what science is for. To seek answers and learn. To gain knowledge through a specific process of gathering evidence and conducting experiments to aquire truth and knowledge.

Intelligent Design Theory is giving up and remaining ignorant. It's simply saying "I don't know, so someone smarter than me must have done it". Now, if there was some coordinated effort by believers in intelligent design to gather evidence and actually prove their theory, that would be something worth debating, but that is exactly the opposite of what they do. Intelligent Design believers simply say "God did it" and use that as an excuse to not even look for evidence or reason.

It's not my theory. I don't support any theory on the origin of life... I'm not going to $#@! on any of them, either. No one has an answer, that's why.

On the contrary, you already have $#@! on ALL theory outside of intelligent design by even suggesting that intelligent design theory has any scientific merit at all.

Intelligent design is NOT science. No attempt is made to study or prove it. It's the opposite of science, it's willful ignorance.

To answer your question: It depends.

We know, for a fact, that life started at some point. If a scientist can, in a lab, reconstruct the conditions needed for life to spring from mud, then I would think, "Ok. So, life can spring from mud. That's pretty cool." I'd be even more convinced if that artificially created life was capable of replication and mutation because that's essential to the equation. Regardless, it wouldn't answer the question, "Did some supernatural force create these conditions in the first place."

To answer that question would require science.

So tell me, who is doing the scientific research to prove intelligent design? What scientific evidence have they gathered, what scientific experiments have they done to either confirm or deny their beliefs, and what efforts do they have planned for further scientific research in that field of study?

If your answer is nothing, then it's NOT SCIENCE.

In all the vastness of the universe -- are we alone?

We are if you follow intelligent design. And we will remain so until a real scientists proves we aren't.

I see a collection of cell colonies living together in a symbiotic relationship.

Each individual cell has it's own lifespan, and it's own purpose within the colony. Some cells, such as the skin cells have very short lifespans and die and are replaced by newer cells on a regular basis, and some cells such as the cells in the brain and bones will continue to live after the symbiotic cell colonies as a collective dies. This is why organ transplants are possible, the individual cell colonies continue to live even though the symbiotic collective has been broken.

Together, this collection of symbiotic cell colonies is known as a human body, but each individual cell is it's own living organism with it's own separate lifespan.

Creatism is not a science, that's for sure. When you say science, I say scientist method. Of course, when you say religion, I say God.

Here's the thing. What if BOTH of them were taught in schools? Science is already taught, but what if kids were taught about religion in schools?

Also, I like what my science teacher in high school said. She agrees that science and religion should and can coexist.

Last but not least, what's with the religion bashing everytime a thread comes up like this? It's not even necessary to say religion isn't real or is a myth.

Religion is taught in UK schools (or was when I last atteneded in the mid 90's) and known as "Religious Studies" in which we learnt about all sorts of religions and their festivals such as Ramadan and Diwali and many more.

Also, I like what my science teacher in high school said. She agrees that science and religion should and can coexist.

It depends on the form of religion.

For example, deistic views of religion (that a god created the universe and left it alone thereafter), and pantheistic views (universe = god), are compatible with science.

However, a religion that makes assertions such as the existence of miracles (virgin birth), or that the world is only 10 thousand years old, is not compatible with science. Coexistence on this level would require the religion to change its assertions when new scientific facts are discovered, but this can't happen without undermining said religion. The result? This type of religion becomes more and more irrelevant as education levels increase and new knowledge is discovered. Many people ignore this incompatibility through cognitive dissonance, but the incompatibility doesn't go away.

I see chicken and others attempt to go off on tangents about explaining the origin of life. This should be even further proof that creationism has no business in a science classroom, and these people definitely should not be allowed to dictate policy when it comes to science; they don't even grasp the fact that evolution doesn't even deal with the origin of life, or abiogenesis. It's like the equivalent of saying "So you think apples grow on trees? Then how do you explain how ducks float on water!" These people aren't qualified to tell you what belongs in a science curriculum. They're simply trying to push an agenda.

Sorry, champ. I asked my original question as a response to both the article, which suggests we teach evolution and creationism with each other, and to a poster which called one a theory and the other a myth. I'm well aware of the difference between the two and I'm not "going on a tangent" when the article in question cites both as being near related enough to be taught together.

Also, I have no agenda I'm trying to push. I don't know if there is, or isn't, a God, so I'm reserving judgement on anyone who believes, or doesn't, on that subject. It's not my place to act all high-and-mighty on a subject that no one has any truth about.

Could there be a God? Sure.
Could there not be a God? Sure, that too.
Does Creationism and Intelligent Design require a belief in a judeo-christian God? No, it doesn't.
Do we have proof for the origin of life? No, so the origin of life could come from any theory.
If, at this time, we can't prove or disprove the existence of something, does that mean it doesn't exist? No.

With all that said, is it possible that some 'God' created the universe (and everything in it) -- including life that has the ability to evolve to environmental changes? Yea, I don't see why not. Is it possible everything wasn't created by a God? Yea, I don't see why not.

I wish I could be so smart to have absolute answers to things that we can't observe and test yet.

Edit: I'm well aware of what the burden of proof is and that's why I'm not speaking in absolutes. I'm not the one saying that Creationism is, or isn't, real. I'm not the one saying there is, or isn't, a God. Maybe if you watched your own video, you'd see that the 'I don't know' answer is, as the moderator says, an 'Honorable answer'.

You get this sort of activity a lot here in America. It's a petty thing. Uneducated people sohuld have no hand in how education is taught. Evolution is a factual process, and people who oppose it, religious or not, need to get over themselves and read a $#@!ing book.

Originally Posted by Chickenooble

-snip-

Claiming that a supernatural being caused an event that we currently can't explain is irresponsible towards the promise of teaching and bettering our knowledge of the world. It's entirely gratuitous as an explanation. If you come home and find your house robbed, you don't consider that maybe a leprechaun did it. This is because as far as we have ever observed the universe operates on a set of procedure, and a god functions against that. Before, many sects of society thought that many things, a good example being the weather, were caused by God, but now we know this was simply not the case. They believed this due to their ignorance and lack of proper explanation for the scenario. Don't forget that the concept of god is a fabricated notion entirely.

Not that this is really related to the topic, though. Many religions, especially the abrahamic faiths, detail statements that do not correspond with reality whatsoever. They can be taught in school, given absolutely no additional benefit or invocation over any other social studies material, and it needs to be recognized that they are myths, not science. Science and religion are not remotely on the same playing field.

I'm surprised not to see more Americans in this thread supporting intelligent design and the like, considering that 46% of its inhabitants subscribe to the notion that the Earth is aged between five and ten thousand years old (young earth creationism).

This statistic is a worrying indictment of the current state of America's backward, conservative thinking which in part is promulgated through the teaching of creationism in its institutions. If anything, this should be a deterrent for the teaching of intelligent design to children.

Intelligent design is ironic in the sense that it tries desperately to use scientific rationale to substantiate creationist thinking. Not a single reputable scientist will subscribe to intelligent design because it is simply creationist propaganda that is completely devoid of any scientific value whatsoever. It's a meretricious theory that creationists can cling onto in the face of scrutiny.

As Completely Average pointed out so eloquently in this thread, religion has evolved to dispel any form of scientific scrutiny. Religion has an answer for all of life's important questions, but is 'because God did it' a legitimate answer any more, when science is answering the same questions but with more substance.

The quote below, for me, sums up religion and it's lack of receptiveness when it comes to external scrutiny. Intelligent design is a product by the same means.

'The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry'.

Sorry, champ. I asked my original question as a response to both the article, which suggests we teach evolution and creationism with each other, and to a poster which called one a theory and the other a myth. I'm well aware of the difference between the two and I'm not "going on a tangent" when the article in question cites both as being near related enough to be taught together.

It's not that one is a theory and the other is a myth. It's that one is science and the other is anti-science.

When creationism/intelligent design starts adhering to accepted scientific process of forming theories, collecting evidence to support the theories, and conducting experiments to try to either prove or disprove the theory, then it could reasonably be taught in a science class.

BUT NO ONE IS DOING THAT.

Why is that so hard for you to understand. SCIENCE IS NOT WHAT YOU BELIEVE, SCIENCE IS NOT FAITH.

Science is what you can prove or disprove through collected evidence and experimentation. Blind faith-based beliefs without any attempt to prove is RELIGION, and has no place in a science class, or public school for that matter.

Originally Posted by The Black Wolf

Here's the thing. What if BOTH of them were taught in schools? Science is already taught, but what if kids were taught about religion in schools?

Religion is taught at school. The school usually carries a name like "Church", "Mosque", "Synagogue", temples, etc.... These are schools that teach religion, and that's where religious teaching should remain.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.